LauraB, this topic is for you. For others who have not seen this, LauraB feels that her KJV is the only Bible documented as being an accurate translation of the Word of God (LauraB correct me if I am stating this wrong.)
LauraB, also remember, the heat gets hot in this kitchen when KJVO and non-KJVO rivals debate this topic, so be ready for a knock-down drag-out.
I'll help start this one for you. I disagree with your statements and use the New English Version a lot----tell me what is wrong with it...
(have fun---but be ready for some tough swipes)
[Subject name was changed to comply with posting rule #7 - Moderator]
[ October 04, 2002, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]
KJV -vs- ESV
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Phillip, Oct 4, 2002.
Page 1 of 4
-
I'm not familiar with the NEV actually, can you give me some info on it?
Eric -
-
I would never in a million years call you "stupid", "ignorant", or even "whatever" I have a copy of the ESV, and I think it's okay, but that it inherited some idiosyncrasies from the RSV (on which it was based). Fortunately, the most blatant problems with the RSV were fixed in the ESV, and hopefully they'll make further improvements in later revisions.
I refer to my KJV much more frequently than my ESV, actually, so I guess I'm on LindaB's side on this one
Eric
[ October 04, 2002, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ] -
I am pretty much in agreement with you. I was giving her a boost and letting her know that it is okay to disagree here. Yes, I use my KJV more than anything with other translations (like the ESV) to help me understand sections that don't make a lot of sense. For me, Paul's letters are somewhat hard to understand in the KJV English, but once I see it in an easier translation, then I can see it easily in the KJV. So, really, my real study is usually with a KJV using something else as a backup. That is, when I'm not trying to struggle with some of the Greek (let alone Hebrew). I know this is a little off subject, but what are your thoughts of the new Holman project?
-
Well, I used to use NASB more than anything else, but lately I've been using the NKJV more and more because I'm becoming more sympathetic to the idea that the Textus Receptus is more reliable than the CT. I think I'll want to read up on that issue, but the TR text seems more internally consistent. I often read passages in both NKJV & NASB, and look things up in my concordance when they dramatically disagree (the last part of Rom 12:1, for example).
As far as the HCSB goes, I've been using it a lot in my devotional reading lately and have been impressed with it. It could turn out to be a good alternative to the NLT as a devotional Bible and to the NIV as a general purpose Bible. It isn't really a replacement for the NKJV/NASB as far as serious word study goes, probably, but that isn't what it was really intended for.
When the complete translation comes out in 2004, I expect to be one of the first to buy a copy
Eric
[ October 04, 2002, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ] -
I hope I didn't run LauraB off. I was hoping for her to join in.
You mentioned the TR as being better. I tend to agree with this also, but I am not finding a lot of good literature on the subject (besides the basic KJVO arguments). Do you know anything I can read or is there any information available on the net discussing the merits of the TR vs. the other manuscripts? -
Not I, but DocCas is The Man as far as this stuff goes, so hopefully he'll stumble across this thread and post something
Eric -
ESV all the way!
Clay -
:D :D :D
Eric
[ October 04, 2002, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ] -
Btw, I found an informative article on text sources:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html
Eric -
No, I'm a read the Bible and
study it and then translate
it into your life fanatic.
The best translation is the
one that is read-and lived!
Clay -
BTW Thanks for the links Eric_b -
-
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
I'm not denying that such a crowd exists; but I do not think those of us on the BB that are "KJVO" would subscribe to such heresy. The KJVO philosophy that is described in this forum is not a very accurate description.
I, by faith, believe the KJV to be God's preserved Word for the English speaking people. I believe the MV's originate from a separate textual basis. That is why I am KJVO. There are many that would like to add inaccurate points to convey their perspective of what KJVO means. -
I'm not denying that such a crowd exists; but I do not think those of us on the BB that are "KJVO" would subscribe to such heresy. The KJVO philosophy that is described in this forum is not a very accurate description.
I, by faith, believe the KJV to be God's preserved Word for the English speaking people. I believe the MV's originate from a separate textual basis. That is why I am KJVO. There are many that would like to add inaccurate points to convey their perspective of what KJVO means.</font>[/QUOTE]I appologize, I went too far in my description. I do reserve the right to disagree with you and let me ask you 2 questions so that I can better understand your position.
1. What did the English speaking culture do for a Bible before 1611?
2. What about the NKJV?
3. What do you do about translations into other languages? Do you translate from the KJV or from original documents?
4. Are you aware that there was a debate during the KJV translation and four different manuscripts were used in Revelation alone, how do we know which is correct?
5. Without the originals, how can you define which ancient manuscript is the most accurate?
Okay, I'll change that to FIVE questions. Sorry
I'm still learning, so I'm not saying I'm right. -
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
2. The NKJV has influences from the Westcott/Hort Text that I am concerned about.
3. Any faithful translation from the Majority Text is the Word of God regardless of what language it is in.
4. I was unaware of this. Could you please site your source of this information. I believe that God providentially preserved His Word. The MS's that were in majority agreement would be the correct ones to use.
5. The Received Text is an accurate compilation of the originals IMO. -
Pastor Bob,
Since I use the NKJV regularly, I would be very interested in hearing what you think are the "Westcott/Hort text" influences on the NKJV. Could you list some of them for me?
Thanks,
Pastork -
Eric -
Eric</font>[/QUOTE]Eric, you are correct, many people have mistaken the 'Majority Text' for the 'Received Text (Textus Receptus)' they are NOT the same source material; however, this is a common misunderstanding. You are right!
Page 1 of 4